JUDGMENT Ram Chandra Prasad Sinha, J. The writ petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification issued by the order of the Governor of Bihar under the signature of the Director of Secondary Education-cum-Additional Secretary. Education Department of the Government of Bihar (respondent No.2) contained in Memo No. 2715-60, Patna, dated the 9th, November, 1982, a true copy whereof is Annexure 8 to this writ application, as well as the letter bearing No, 7564-67 dated the 11th November, 1982, issued by the District Education Officer, Siwan (respondent no. 3) in pursuance of the notification, referred to above, a copy of which is Annexure 9 to the writ application. 2. By Annexure 8, respondent no. 4 has been appointed Headmaster by promotion on ad hoc basis for a period of six months from the date of the issue of the notification or till the post of Headmaster is filled by promotion on permanent basis with the concurrence of the School Service Board or whichever occurs earlier. On the basis of the aforesaid notification, Annexure 9 has been issued to the petitioner intimating him the aforesaid notification and asking him to hand over charge to respondent no. 4 without delay. 3. The case of the petitioner, in brief, is that he is senior to respondent no. 4 and that he was appointed Assistant Headmaster of the school by the Managing Committee by its resolution dated 14th April, 1974, and on retirement of the then Headmaster on the 1st of September, 1976, he has been working as Headmaster Incharge of the School. Further case of the petitioner is that by resolution dated 14th March, 1976, the petitioner was made Headmaster and respondent no. 4 was appointed as Assistant Headmaster which was to take effect from 2nd September, 1976, On the retirement of the then Headmaster on 1st September, 1976, but, during the course of argument, Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh appearing for the petitioner, very specifically stated that the petitioner was not basing his claim on the aforesaid resolution dated 14th March, 1976, a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ application. On the basis of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Headmaster as also on the basis that he admittedly is discharging the function of Headmaster. On the basis of the fact that the petitioner was appointed as Assistant Headmaster as also on the basis that he admittedly is discharging the function of Headmaster. Incharge from the date of the retirement of the previous Headmaster on 1st September, 1976, he claims that he should have been promoted to the post of Headmaster on an adhoc basis under law and not respondent no. 4. Respondent no. 4 was appointed as Headmaster Incharge, but on appeal filed by the petitioner the operation of that order was stayed. 4. Respondent no. 4 entered caveat and has also filed counter affidavit. His case is that he being the senior most teacher of the School has been legally and validly promoted to the post of Headmaster of the School on an adhoc basis and that the petitioner being Junior to him has got no right to be appointed and to challenge the validity of Annexures 8 and 9. He has also challenged the genuineness and legality of the resolutions dated 14th April, 1974, and 14th March, 1976 appointing the petitioner or making recommendation for appointing the petitioner as Assistant Headmaster and Headmaster of the School respectively. 5. Respondent Nos. 1 to 3 have also filed counter-affidavit more or less on the line of the counter-affidavit of respondent no 4 supporting his case. It has been stated therein that the Cases of the petitioner respondent no. 4 and one Shri Radha Krishna Singh were considered and examined in detail by the Government and thereafter respondent no. 4 has been promoted to the post or Headmaster of the School on an adhoc basis. The factum of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Headmaster and subsequently as Headmaster has also been challenged by these respondents. It has been also stated in their counter-affidavit that respondent no. 4 was appointed as acting Headmaster of the School vide order dated 17th August, 1979 by the Bihar Secondary Education Board (hereinafter referred to as 'the Board') which was the competent authority to appoint acting Headmaster and the writ petitioner was never appointed as acting Headmaster by the Board. The Managing Committee had no power of making appointment. 6. The following facts are either admitted or not disputed by the parties :- The petitioner graduated in 1951 and got Diploma in Education in 1957. The Managing Committee had no power of making appointment. 6. The following facts are either admitted or not disputed by the parties :- The petitioner graduated in 1951 and got Diploma in Education in 1957. He passed M.A. Examination in 1968 and got selection grade scale in the year 1969. He worked as founder Headmaster from 2nd January, 1956 to 11th October, 1960 in Halwar Pripra High English School which was recognised by the Board on 31st October, 1961 with effect from 1st January, 1961. He also worked as Assistant Teacher in N.S. Vidyalaya, Sadwan a recognised School from 14th October, 1960 to 20th April, 1962. On 16th April, 1962, he was appointed as Assistant Teacher in the present school as trained graduate. The then Headmaster retired on 1st September, 1976 and since then the petitioner was working as Headmaster Incharge, i.e. the petitioner was defacto Headmaster Incharge of the School. Respondent no.4 being an I.Sc. was appointed as Assistant Teacher and joined the present School on 1st August, 1956, graduated on 1st June, 1957 and became trained in the year 1966. He was granted selection grade scale in the year 1978 with effect from 1st of April, 1973. 7. The first contention of the petitioner is that he was promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster by resolution dated 14th April, 1974 passed by the Managing Committee which was then the competent authority to make appointment a true copy of which has been annexed as Annexure 3 to this writ application. The aforesaid resolution was sent to the District Education Officer, Saran. who was then the competent authority for approving thereof but approval or rejection of the aforesaid resolution having been not communicated by the District Education Officer, the petitioner's appointment as Assistant Headmaster would be deemed to have been approved under sub rule (8) of rule 14 of the Bihar High School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1972 (hereinafter referred to as' 1972 Rules') which was applicable at that time. The petitioner being the legally appointed Assistant Headmaster of the school should have been promoted to the post of Headmaster on the adhoc basis as he will be the seniormost teacher to be promoted to the post of Headmaster under Paragraph 4 of the Government Letter No. 510 dated 20.11.1981 which has been issued under section 15 of the Bihar Non-Government Secondary Schools (Taking over of Management and Control) Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as 1981 Act'). According to him, the impugned order Contained in Annexure 8 having been passed in contravention of the aforesaid paragraph is illegal and fit to be quashed. 8. On the other hand, the contention of the respondents is that the petitioner was never appointed as Assistant Headmaster of the School anti the resolution dated 14.4.1974 is forged and ante dated. The aforesaid alleged resolution was never sent to the District Education Officer, Saran, and the question of approving or disapproving of the same does not arise. It has been further urged that there was no post of Assistant Head-Master in the School as the number of students was not 320 or above for three consecutive years before 14th April, 1974 and in the year 1972, the total strength of the students of the school was only 297. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent nos. 1 to 3, it has been also stated that there was no sanctioned post of Assistant Headmaster in the School on 14th April, 1974 because in preceding three years the number of students in the school was not even 320. 9. The existence of the aforesaid resolution has been challenged by respondent no. 4 as well as by respondent nos. 1 to 3 and as such it is not possible to give any finding on the existence of the same in absence of any document of unimpeachable character. In the writ application the petitioner has nowhere stated that the copy of the aforesaid resolution or the matter of appointment of the petitioner as Assistant Headmaster of the school was ever sent to the District Education Officer for approval. In paragraph 10 of the writ application it has only been averred that on 14th April, 1974, the Managing Committee of the school promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Headmaster and a true copy of the resolution has been annexed as Annexure 3 to this writ application. In paragraph 10 of the writ application it has only been averred that on 14th April, 1974, the Managing Committee of the school promoted the petitioner to the post of Assistant Headmaster and a true copy of the resolution has been annexed as Annexure 3 to this writ application. In reply to the counter-affidavit also, the petitioner has nowhere stated that the copy of the aforesaid resolution was sent to the District Education Officer for necessary approval. Therefore, in absence of necessary facts about sending of the resolution to the District Education Officer having not been pleaded, the petitioner cannot take advantage of the provision of sub-rule (8) of rule 14 of the 1972 Rules which says that the competent officer would communicate his opinion within one month from the date of the receipt of the recommendation and if the opinion would not be communicated, then it would be deemed that the recommendation of the Managing Committee was approved. Nowhere either in the writ application or in the reply to the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the aforesaid recommendation was received in the office of the District Education Officer. According to rule 4 (2) of the 1972 Rules before promoting any Assistant Teacher to the post of Headmaster or Assistant Headmaster, there must be a clear decision of the Managing Committee to fill up the post either by promotion or through advertisement. In this case, the petitioner has not stated anywhere in the writ petition, supplementary affidavit or reply to the counter-affidavit that before promoting the petitioner to the post of Assistant Headmaster the Managing Committee had taken decision to fill up the post by promotion and absence of the same casts serious doubt on the case of the petitioner that he was ever promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster by the Managing Committee. One fact which is also relevant in this regard is this that Ordinance No. 112 of 1974 known as Bihar Secondary Education Board Ordinance was promulgated and published in the Bihar Gazette (Extraordinary) dated 21st May, 1974 and came into force on its publication and with the coming into force of the aforesaid Ordinance, the power of the District Education Officer either to approve or disapprove ceased from that date and the power vested in the Secondary Education Board. There is different scale of pay of Assistant Headmaster and the petitioner has not stated anywhere that he was ever given the scale of Assistant Headmaster. For the reasons, stated above, it cannot be said that the petitioner was legally appointed as Assistant Headmaster of the School and the arguments made on his behalf in this regard have got no substance. Besides, the petitioner has not been able to substantiate that there was a sanctioned post of Assistant Headmaster in this School on 14th April. 1974 and that there were requisite number of students in the school in preceding three years in view of the affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent nos. 1 to 3. 10. According to the case of the petitioner, he was recommended for being promoted to the post of Headmaster on the retirement of the then Headmaster on 1st September, 1976 by resolution of the Managing Committee dated 14th March, 1976 a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 4 to the writ application, but it has been very fairly Conceded by Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is not basing his claim on Annexure 4 as at that time the Managing Committee had got no power to make recommendation for being promoted to the post of Headmaster in view of the provisions of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Ordinance which was promulgated from time to time. His contention is that on the retirement of the then Headmaster by virtue of the aforesaid resolution the petitioner became Headmaster Incharge and began to discharge the functions of the Headmaster from 2nd September, 1976 and as he was continuing to be the defacto Headmaster Incharge on the date on which the order for promoting respondent no. 4 was passed, he should have been appointed as Headmaster on ad hoc basis according to the Government decision contained in a letter No. 3904/4058 dated 23rd February, 1982 a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 10 to the supplementary affidavit filed on behalf of the petitioner. The aforesaid annexure is a communication from Director (Secondary Education) cum-Special Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, to all the District Education Officers of the State. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh has referred to Paragraph 2 and has placed reliance thereon. The aforesaid annexure is a communication from Director (Secondary Education) cum-Special Secretary, Department of Education, Government of Bihar, to all the District Education Officers of the State. Mr. Ganesh Prasad Singh has referred to Paragraph 2 and has placed reliance thereon. The said paragraph is quoted herein below – ^^vU; fo|ky;ks es tgka 2-10-80 ds iwoZ ls fjDr iz/kkuk/;kid in ij ojh; lgk;d f’k{kd izHkkjh iz/kkuk/;kid ds :i es dk;Zjr gS] mu fo|ky;ks es rnFkZ izksUufr 31-5-1982 rd fn;s tkus dk fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gSA^^ On the basis of this, he has contended that the petitioner is admittedly continuing as Headmaster Incharge and he being the senior teacher should had been promoted to the post of Headmaster on an adboc basis. His submission is that the petitioner may not be a de jure Headmaster but he admittedly is defacto Headmaster. The further submission is that the petitioner is one of the senior teachers of the school though he may not be the seniormost teacher and in the aforesaid paragraph the expression is Pradhanadhyapak Ke Rup Men Katyarat Hain" and the word 'Variya' and not 'Variyatam' has been used. According to him, the petitioner fulfils the criteria laid down in that paragraph and the authorities have contravened this paragraph by promoting respondent no. 4 and not the petitioner on the other hand, it has been urged on behalf of respondent no. 4 that in paragraph 2 of the aforesaid Government letter, the words "Headmaster Incharge" used therein refer to such Headmaster Incharge who have been legally made to act as Headmaster Incharge and the same will not apply to such Headmaster Incharge who illegally assumes power of Headmaster and begins to act as Headmaster Incharge, and the resolution dated 14th March, 1976 (Annexure 4) is entirely illegal and without jurisdiction became after the promulgation of Ordinance on 21st May, 1974, the Managing Committee ceased to have any jurisdiction in the matter because the Bihar High School (Control and Regulation of Administration) Act, 1960 and the Bihar High School (Service Conditions) Rules, 1972 framed thereunder ceased to exist which had given power to the Managing Committee to pass resolution for recommending a teacher for promotion to the post of Headmaster. 11. 11. The petitioner has further referred to Government order No. 2305 dated 25th July, 1977, which was issued under section 63 of the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act, 1976 (hereinafter referred to as the 1976 Act') which gave power to the Government to issue direction and has submitted that after the aforesaid Government order or direction, the Managing Committee again passed resolution in the meeting held on 15th October, 1977 appointing the petitioner as Headmaster and respondent no. 4 as Assistant Headmaster, a true copy whereof has been annexed as Annexure 5 to the writ application. This resolution says that the petitioner is promoted to the post of Headmaster on the basis of seniority and that he was also promoted to the aforesaid post by resolution no. 2 dated 14th March, 1976 and he is acting as Headmaster. In the same very resolution it has been said that' respondent no. 4 being the second senior teacher is also being promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster and previously also he was promoted to the post of Assistant Headmaster along with the petitioner. It is significant to note that in this resolution the petitioner was not described as Assistant Headmaster of the school rather it has been mentioned that he is being promoted on the basis of seniority. The aforesaid Government order lays down the procedure for promotion to the post of Headmaster and Assistant Headmaster. According to Paragraph 4 of the said Government order, the teacher having requisite qualification for being promoted to the post of Headmaster would be appointed by promotion by getting the recommendation from the Education Service Commission, According to Paragraph 10, the Managing Committee has to send names of all the teachers eligible for being appointed as Headmaster according to their seniority along with the documents and recommendations to the District Education Officer and the District Education Officer would send, after making enquiry into the resolution, to the Secondary Education Board which in turn would send to the Education Service Commission. The aforesaid resolution does not show that it was merely a recommendation, rather it shows that the petitioner was promoted to the post of Headmaster and, according to the aforesaid Government order, the Managing Committee had got no power to make appointments. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further referred to Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ application. 12. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has further referred to Annexures 6 and 7 to the writ application. Annexure 6 is the copy of letter no. 1768 dated 20th August, 1979 sent by the Sub-divisional Education Officer, Siwan to the District Education Officer Siwan, and Annexure 7 is a copy of letter no.428 dated 6th September, 1979 sent by the District Education Officer, Siwan, to the Secretary, Bihar Secondary Education Board, along with copy of annexure 6 to the writ application. On the basis of the aforesaid letter, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that the petitioner in fact was discharging the functions of Headmaster and was Headmaster lncharge on the superannuation of Shri Mangal Dayal Singh, the permanent Headmaster of the school on 1st September, 1976. Though the aforesaid letters support his contention, but it is not the case of the petitioner that after the aforesaid letters the Board approved the functioning of the petitioner as acting Headmaster of the School. On the basis of the aforesaid resolution of the Managing Committee, no follow up action was taken and the aforesaid annexures are not of any avail to the petitioner. 13. According to respondent no. 4, after passing of the resolution dated 16th October, 1977, contained in Annexure 5, he made a protest to the Secretary of the School and thereafter a meeting of the Managing Committee was held on 24th December, 1977 in which a decision was taken that the Secretary would meet the authority of the Board with all relevant papers and would acquaint them about the difficulties which the members of the Committee were feeling in the matter. A meeting of the Managing Committee was again held on 2nd February, 1979, in which it was decided to make request to the Board to decide the matter of seniority between the petitioner and respondent no. 4 and communicate its decision to the Committee or give this post to the senior teacher as in absence of any Headmaster the work of the institution was suffering. A true copy of the aforesaid protest petition is Annexure B-4 and the decision of the Managing Committee is Annexure C-4 to the counter-affidavit. It has been asserted by respondent no. 4 that in both the resolutions the petitioner participated as a member of the Managing Committee. A true copy of the aforesaid protest petition is Annexure B-4 and the decision of the Managing Committee is Annexure C-4 to the counter-affidavit. It has been asserted by respondent no. 4 that in both the resolutions the petitioner participated as a member of the Managing Committee. In reply to the counter affidavit, the petitioner has asserted that the aforesaid annexures are concocted and fabricated documents. Since the aforesaid assertions made by respondent no. 4 have been challenged by the petitioner, it is very difficult to give a finding thereon. Respondent no. 4 has further asserted that the Bihar Secondary Education Board vide its order dated 7.8.1979 appointed respondent no. 4 as acting Headmaster of the School, but the functioning of respondent no.4 as acting Headmaster of the School was disturbed by the District Education Officer who was in collusion with the petitioner. A true copy of the aforesaid order has been annexed as Annexure 'A' to the caveat petition. In the aforesaid order it has been stated that permission is accoreded to respondent no. 4 to act as Headmaster Incharge of the School. Against the aforesaid assertion of respondent no. 4 the petitioner has stated that he filed appeal to the Chairman of the Board against the aforesaid order dated 7th August, 1979 and the operation of the order was stayed. In the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 it has been stated that the order dated 7.8.1979 was never stayed. 14. Under section 63, sub-section (7) of the 1976 Act, the appeal was to be filed before an authority not lower than the status of a Secretary appointed by the Government. In paragraph 6 of the reply filed by the petitioner to the caveat petition it has been stated that the petitioner filed appeal before the Chairman of the then Bihar Secondary Board against the order dated 7th August, 1979 and the same was stayed till final hearing, but neither any notice was given to the deponent nor he was heard and the same remained undisposed of. The petitioner has not filed any document either to show that an appeal was filed before the Chairman or that the operation of the aforesaid order dated 7th August, 1979 was stayed Even assuming that an appeal was filed before the Chairman, the said appeal would not be treated as an appeal in the eye of law because the appeal was not filed before the authority appointed by the Government. It has further to be noticed that no appeal could lay before the Chairman against his own decision or the decision of the Board. 15. As it has been stated above, the argument on behalf of the petitioner is that when the decision was taken to appoint respondent no. 4 as Headmaster on an adhoc basis, the petitioner was acting as Headmaster and he should have been appointed or promoted to the post of Headmaster on an adhoc basis because, as contended, the word used in Annexure 10 are "Pradhanadhyapak Ke Rup Men Karyarat Hain." In my opinion, the aforesaid words would include such Headmasters who were or are acting as such on the basis of some legal order and would not include such Headmaster who assumed to act as Headmaster In-charge in the manner not sanctioned by law and the contention of learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner in. this regard has no substance. The word 'Pradhanadhyapak' used in Paragraph 2 of Annexure 10 (quoted above) would mean legally appointed Headmaster and would not include a person who has not been appointed as acting Headmaster or Headmaster Incharge in accordance with law. 16. The further contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner graduated in 1951 and if the services rendered by him in Halwar Pipra High English School and N.C. Vidvalaya, Sadawan are taken into consideration, he would be senior to respondent no. 4 who graduated in the year 1957 though he was appointed in the present school on 1st August, 1956 and the petitioner was appointed on the 16th April, 1962. In Paragraph 4 of the Government order no. 510 dated 20th November, 1981, the basis for determining seniority for being promoted to the post of Headmaster has been laid down. In sub-para (i) Paragraph 4, it has been stated that Assistant Headmaster of a School who has been appointed in a legal manner would be considered to be the seniormost teacher. 510 dated 20th November, 1981, the basis for determining seniority for being promoted to the post of Headmaster has been laid down. In sub-para (i) Paragraph 4, it has been stated that Assistant Headmaster of a School who has been appointed in a legal manner would be considered to be the seniormost teacher. In sub-paragraph (ii), it has been mentioned that where there is no Assistant Headmaster, the seniority would be determined amongst the post-graduate teachers and teachers getting selection grade scale on the basis of the date of appointment as graduate. It has further been mentioned therein that seniority amongst the teachers getting selection grade scale of pay would be determined on the basis of appointment after graduation. On the basis of this respondent no. 4 is senior to the petitioner because, as stated above, he was appointed in this School on 1st August, 1956 as an I.Sc. teacher, but he graduated in 1957. The school was recognised school from before 1st August, 1956. The petitioner, as stated above, after graduation had worked from 2nd January, 1956 to 11th October 1960 in Halwar Pipra High English School and he had left the aforesaid school before the same was recognised by the Board. Thereafter he worked from 14th October, 1960 to 20th April 1962 in N.S. Vidyalaya Sadwan, which was a recognised school. His services in Halwar Pipra High English School would not be taken into consideration at all for determining the seniority because, as said above, the school was not recognised. Being aware of this, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, contended that the word 'recognised' or 'Manyata Prapta' has not been used at any place in the aforesaid paragraph 4 of the Government order and. therefore, his services rendered in Halwar Pipra School would be taken into consideration and the petitioner would be senior to respondent no 4. But in all the previous orders and circulars the word 'recognised' or 'Manyata Prapta' has been used. No doubt, the word 'Manyata Prapta' before the word 'Vidyalya' has not been used in the said paragraph but in the present case 'Vidyalya' would mean non-Government Secondary Schools the managements and controls whereof have been taken over by the Government under section 3 of the 1981 Act. No doubt, the word 'Manyata Prapta' before the word 'Vidyalya' has not been used in the said paragraph but in the present case 'Vidyalya' would mean non-Government Secondary Schools the managements and controls whereof have been taken over by the Government under section 3 of the 1981 Act. In section 2 (a) of the Act Non-Government secondary school has been defined as secondary school recognised by the Secondary Board constituted under the Bihar Secondary Education Board Act, 1976 and Bihar Secondary Education Board (Second Amendment) Ordinance 1980. In Section 2 (b) secondary school has been defined' as school management and control whereof has been taken over by the State Government under section 3 of the Act. According to the aforesaid definition given in the Act, services rendered in the recognised school are only to be taken into account and not the services rendered in non-recognised school after graduation while determining seniority and as such the services rendered by the petitioner in Halwar Pipra School can not be taken into consideration at all and thus the respondent no. 4 is senior to the petitioner as stated above. 17. The petitioner as well as respondent no. 4 is in selection grade scale. Respondent no. 4 is getting selection grade from the year 1979 and the petitioner is getting the said scale from the year 1973, but respondent no. 4 having been a graduate teacher since the year 1957 in the present school, he will be senior to the petitioner. Paragraph 6 of the aforesaid Government order further says that the Director would send the names of three teachers of a school where the post of Headmaster is vacant from before 2nd October, 1980 treating each institution as an independent unit to the School Service Board for promotion along with their service records and five years' confidential character roll and other documents which throw light on their work and conduct and the Service Board would consider all the documents and records and would send its recommendation to the Government. The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the case of adhoc appointment would not be governed by Government order No. 510 and it will be governed according to letter No, 3908/4058 dated 23rd February, 1982 (Annexure 10). The submission on behalf of the petitioner is that the case of adhoc appointment would not be governed by Government order No. 510 and it will be governed according to letter No, 3908/4058 dated 23rd February, 1982 (Annexure 10). There is no substance in this argument made on behalf of the petitioner as Government order No. 510 clearly lays down the rules and procedure for making appointment by promotion from amongst the teachers of the school treating the school as an independent unit if the vacancy on the post is from before 2nd October, 1980 and the criteria for determining the seniority have also been laid down therein Besides, as it has been stated above, the petitioner was neither legally appointed Headmaster nor he was discharging the function of the Head master Incharge on the basis of any order passed in accordance with law, his case would not be governed by Annexure 10 and he cannot take advantage of the direction given in the aforesaid annexure. 18. No doubt, the petitioner is eligible for being considered for being promoted to the post of Headmaster. In paragraph 22 of the counter-affidavit filed on behalf of respondent dent nos. 1 to 3, it has been very clearly stated that the cases of the petitioner, respondent no. 4 and one Shri Radha Krishna Singh were considered and examined in detail by the Government and there after respondent no. 4 has been appointed as Headmaster of the School and that too on adhoc basis. Seniority is not the sole basis for promoting a teacher to the post of Headmaster. As stated above, the confidential character roll and other things are also to be examined. 19. In sub-section (9) of section 10 of the 1981 Act it has been mentioned that the Board would recommend for appointment or promotion to the post of Headmaster to the Director in accordance with the provisions of the Act and rules made thereunder. The aforesaid sub-section empowers the State Government to give promotion on adhoc basis for six months or more in absence of the recommendation by the Board and in special circumstances in expectation/and anticipation of the recommendation of the Board and from the impugned Annexure 8 it is clear that the Government has exercised its power under the aforesaid provision and has promoted respondent no. 4 to the post of Headmaster on an adhoc basis for a period of six months or till the recommendation of the Board is received for making promotion on permanent basis or whichever of the two happens earlier. In this case, it is not the case of any of the parties that the recommendation of the Board has been received. It appears that the entire matter is before the Board and it will be open to the Board either to recommend him the promotion of respondent no. 4 to the post of Headmaster or not to recommend him on examination of all the relevant documents and matter and thereafter the Government will pass final order in this regard in accordance with law. 20. On the consideration of the aforesaid facts and circumstances I am of the view that there is no merit in the case of the petitioner and the orders as contained in Annexure 8 and 9 are good and valid orders and the application is fit to be dismissed. 21. Accordingly, the application is dismissed. Application Dismissed.